18 November 2012 12:43 AM

Dragging us into a futile war is a job for the political blowhards, General - not YOU

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column

I hate to say it and he won’t be pleased by my endorsement, but Paddy Ashdown is right. Afghanistan is not worth the life of one more British soldier.

It has taken far too long, but at last a significant British political figure has told the truth. Just as happened in Canada, it will now not be long before everyone comes to the same conclusion.

And in a year or two they will all be pretending that they were against it all along.

But by then, unless we can stop it, the coffins will be coming back from Syria instead, and it is quite possible that – as in Helmand – most of the deaths will have been caused by the people who are supposedly on our side.

Just as we were bamboozled into supporting and continuing the futile Afghan intervention on spurious grounds, we are about to be defrauded into a Syrian morass.

General Sir David Richards, grossly exceeding his constitutional role as Head of the Armed Forces, appeared on TV and said of Syria: ‘The humanitarian situation this winter I think will deteriorate and that may well provoke calls to intervene in a limited way . . . There’s no ultimately military reason why one shouldn’t and I know that all these options are, quite rightly, being examined.’

I thought it was the settled view in Britain that soldiers are told what to do by the Government, rather than the other way round.

It’s not for him to say whether it is ‘quite right’ for such options to be examined. As it happens, if this war comes, most people will pretty quickly realise it was quite wrong. But the sad processions through RAF Brize Norton will by then have resumed, and various political blowhards, and their media tools, will be droning on about how we can’t leave now.

As readers of this column will know, the misery in Syria is the direct result of irresponsible, cynical, ignorant intervention in that formerly peaceful country by several Western powers.

We shall shortly be treated to waves of propaganda about the misery of the Syrian refugees shivering in camps in Turkey and Jordan. But it was Western encouragement of terrorist rebellion that turned them into refugees, and caused thousands of horrible deaths.

Those in politics and the media who urged on Syria’s Islamic fanatic rebels, can go round rattling tins for their victims, and examining their consciences too. But the idea that the remains of the British Army should be despatched into one of the most complex and intractable ethnic, religious and political conflicts on the planet, or that it should even be considered, is monstrous. Sir David speaks of a ‘limited’ engagement.

Does this man know no history at all? All the worst and most enduring entanglements begin as ‘limited’ interventions. Our troops will probably still be dying there 20 years from now, at the hands of the nasty zealots, no better than the Assad regime and quite possibly worse, whose cause we are for some strange reason supporting.

Now is the time to protest against this, before the BBC, which has shamefully abandoned impartiality on this issue, really gets going with the refugee propaganda.

Children are a 'setback' to cherish, Lynne

We know, thanks to the stony feminist militant Patricia Hewitt, that New Labour viewed full-time mothers as a ‘problem’. But Ms Hewitt’s ideas have been adopted across the political spectrum.

The view that the raising of the next generation is an important, responsible, rewarding job, or that it could possibly be a proper task for a woman, is now so totally despised that it is heresy to utter it.

Listen to Minister Lynne Featherstone blurting out her thoughts on the matter.

Opining that having a baby is a ‘bit of a setback’, she muses: ‘One of the main barriers to full equality in the UK is the fact women still have babies.’

They do, the minxes. How much more convenient if babies could be made in nice computerised factories and raised impersonally by efficient nurseries for lives of drudgery relieved by shopping, so everyone could slave away in call-centres untroubled by feelings for their own children.

We need beat bobbies, not pointless polls

The Prime Minister and his Home Secretary have made Laurel and Hardy look serious, with their dimwit plan for elected police commissioners.

This was always a stunt and a gimmick. Mr Slippery and Mrs May would do anything rather than have a real return to proper, local police forces patrolling preventively on foot, which is the actual solution to many of our problems. But perhaps there will be a bonus. The derisory polling for these pointless panjandrums – in at least one polling station nobody voted at all – means chief constables will be

Why not extend this idea to politicians? Declare that any candidate who fails to win the support of (say) 25 per cent of the voters on the register will not be elected, even if he comes first. And then we might rule that any party that cannot win 25 per cent of the national electorate cannot take office.

That would give voters the power to tell the existing parties we don’t want them any more, simply by abstaining. As I’ve said many times before, the right not to vote is just as precious as the right to vote. Most of these people speak for nobody. Why should they be in office? Stop voting for them.

The real Islamist threat to Britain comes from mass immigration and multiculturalism. Having encouraged large numbers of Muslims to come and live here, we now also officially urge them to stay separate from the rest of society, and apologise to them for our Christian traditions.

In the end, I fear this will lead to great trouble. But rather than try to tackle it, our leaders get into frothing frenzies about various bearded preachers, called Abu this or Abu that. This enables them to look ‘tough’ and to seem hostile to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg – which they could pull out of tomorrow if they wanted to.

Is Abu Qatada Osama Bin Laden’s ‘right-hand man’? So many people have been given this dubious title that you could fill a church hall with them.

If so, I have two questions.

Why did the Tory Government (unencumbered by Nick Clegg as it then was) let him into Britain on a forged passport in 1993? And if he is so dangerous why don’t we prosecute him here? The whole thing’s a propaganda fraud. Ignore it.

If you want to comment on Peter
Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I can't let you get away with that "Kevin" go back and check. I *have* answered your questions, also I have asked you questions which you have failed to answer any of them. Then you take umbrage because I won't be steered in the evangelical direction you want to go in your "debate". My 28 November 2012 at 11:58 AM post for example (in response to your question: "Was Jesus Christ God incarnate, or just a man? Did he die on the cross for the sins of man,?") you completely ignored my response. In fact all of my last half dozen or so posts are direct replies to your questions, as opposed to your responses which are mainly aimed at gaining points. I asked you: was Muhammad a prophet of God or not? If you think not; then give me your reasons taking into account his achievements on earth and what was in it for the man himself? he died penniless remember, and lived a life of austerity. Fraudsters usually have ulterior motives.

You say:
"But now that your Yusuf Ali pocket playbook can no longer be relied upon to help resolve many if not most of the more serious questions surrounding Muhammed's alleged prophet status , it's suddenly a case of not here, not now, and not with you, Kevin. Okay"

This nasty little ugly sister type remark speaks volumes for your "genuine" enquiries. Your idea of debate is: *I'll show you your wrong and I have no regard for what you have to offer* I have been reading and studying the Bible and St Paul for as long as I can remember and don't need you to tell me what I should follow.

You were happy to debate M Anthony and other contributors on this forum on the same subject, and you didn't question *their* motives once while doing so, did you? But now that your Yusuf Ali pocket playbook can no longer be relied upon to help resolve many if not most of the more serious questions surrounding Muhammed's alleged prophet status , it's suddenly a case of not here, not now, and not with you, Kevin. Okay Dermot, we're done.

Just to add "Kevin" those who hold the view that terrorism, ayatollahs, suicide bombers, fundamentalism, honour killings, female circumcision, burqas, unconditional polygamy, and anything of this order is part of the Islam message are simply too far back down the line to have a serious discussion with. I take it you are not one of those then.
--
Dermot Doyle.

"Let's take up that Koranic challenge together, sift through *all* the evidence currently available and find out."

Sorry "Kevin" not on this forum anyway. Not because I wouldn't find it interesting (quite the contrary its a number one subject); more because I suspect the motive in your ready made-up mind is to denigrate the faith and lead me back to the religion of St Paul. Now, that's a far more interesting discussion. Has the world waited 1400 years for "Kevin" to arrive, put things right, and establish the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud and a liar?
What about the bigger picture? Do you realise just how big it is? The fact that (if you take those who actually practice their faith, rather than in name only (the case in much of western Christendom (another part of the bigger picture)) Islam is the largest faith on earth.
Muhammad entered a world of warring pagan tribes far removed from Monotheism, and left that same world with a as powerful a message of Monotheism as there is anywhere to this day.
Best you just carry on doing what your doing (trying to live a life that God would approve), and prepare yourself to meet and answer to your Maker to explain your actions here on earth, like ALL mortal men must do. That's all Islam is anyway, simple belief and submission to God, and the same message of *all* the Prophets including Jesus. So, what's your problem with that?

Hello Kevin, thanks for your response and sorry I'm late back (decorating). I hope PH doesn't mind us using his blog but we're almost finished are we not? Coming once again to the impass.
Well, I suppose it all boils down to one question: Was Muhammad a Prophet of God or not? If the answer is yes; then this trumps all the words written (including St Paul's) in all the Christian and Jewish libraries. Its not a question of choice for me or anyone else. If Muhammad is genuine (and came after Judaism, and Christianity); then all believers in God; have no choice but to follow his teachings.
Trying to identify "inconsistencies" in the Koran is an academic exercise anyway, as one man's inconsistency is another man's consistency, but it's a pretty impressive book for an illiterate uneducated desert camel-herder to write. As I have said before: one would need to have scholarly knowledge of the history of monotheism as well as a level of scientific knowledge unavailable in Muhammad's day, and Muhammad was neither one or the other.
To reject a Prophet of God, is to reject the very God Himself you claim to worship, for its not for us believers to pick and choose whom or what of God's teaching suits us, after all, the followers of Muhammad during his mission on Earth, were former Jews, Christians, or pagans, and they didn't feel to proud to accept the teachings of the man Moses (Deut 18:18) and Jesus (John 16) predicted would come.
So, was he a Prophet or not?

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you to take up the challenge presented in the Koran, your religious book of choice, to search for any contradictions or falsehoods contained therein. Do that and I'll be happy to debate the merits of so-called "Pauline" Christianity, fail to do that and I see little point in you proffering a response, unless it's to get in a parting salvo. If that's the case then please feel free to go ahead and knock yourself ou but don't expect any further response from me.

By the way, you don't have to dig up quotes from Jeremiah, it's all there in the Koran, your religious book of choice, wherein it testifies that the Christianity proclaimed by Paul is actually true Christianity. (Suras 3:55 & 61:14) According to these passages, Allah gave Christ's followers the power to prevail over the disbelievers, and made them superior till the day of resurrection. The ones that prevailed were Apostles such as Paul and his followers. This means that if the Koran is correct, then Paul's message is the truth since it dominated and prevailed over all other messages.

I only take "great delight" as you put it, in questioning the words of men who falsely claim Divine inspiration.The kind of men Jeremiah 14:15 is talking about, so we know they're there, and in the book, because the book tells us so (perhaps Jer 14:15 even)
God-given scripture from the very beginning has remained the same, never changed and is never ending (If God Himself doesn't change; why would His message?), with all true prophets bringing exactly the same message as those true prophets who came before and after them.
Taking this simple truth into account, I regard it as axiomatic that any deviation from the original simple message of Abraham (such as someone else dying for my sins, a concept unheard of before Paul) is therefore from the false claim department.
The Koran (in my opinion, and I do not expect you to accept it) has expunged the falsehoods, and returned to the original message of Abraham, which is follow God's laws and worship only God no partners, trinities, sons nothing, no images, such as statues (some of which are regarded as holy, and prayed to).
It's all there in your Bible Kevin. Read the second Commandment, and then go and have a look at the statues and pictures in your local church, then tell me honestly; is it right? This is a example of the words of men.
Why should I follow your interpretation of the Bible? when the message I am talking about is plain for all to see in your very own book. A message, that may I add, if followed, is practically identical to Islam.

Hello Dermot. Sorry for the delay, but here's that response I promised you, brief and to the point.

You wrote: 'Let's get one thing straight though, I do not come on here to promote any particular religion...'.

Really? For somebody who professes a 'deep interest in the Abrahamic faiths' (plural) as far as honest, constructive, investigative criticism of those faiths is concerned you appear to take great delight in questioning the OT and NT,citing examples you deem appropriate to make your case, but when it is suggeted we apply the same rules to the Koran, suddenly that becomes 'petty religious squbbling'. Hardly the approach of truly impartial observer, is it?

Hello Dermot. Like yourself I too have a living to earn so it might be a day or two before I'm able to provide an appropriate response, but respond I shall when I get a moment to myself. Have a good weekend.

"And as you are already aware, I've stated my opinions about the authenticity of the Koran on a previous thread and provided you with various examples evidencing the veracity of those opinions"

Kevin.

Terribly sorry old chap, but I can't recall your exact examples. You see you're not the only one to have a go at me on the subject, and I loose track of who said what; after the thread has died. I'd be happy to look at them again, but I am working tonight, so I won't have time to consult the index.
Let's get one thing straight though, I do not come on here to promote any particular religion, especially the angry and ranting Islamist version we see today (excluding genuine and humble Muslims of course), and I've said many times that this is a Christian country (how I wish it was truly Christian); and long may that remain.
However, truth must be faced, and there are certain aspects of Christianity; that do not come from the words of the true Prophet. These points, as far as I am concerned, are more academic than vital now, because the real theatre lies in the Creation verses Evolution debate (that's where its at Kevin, not petty religious squabbles).
I do have a deep interest in the Abrahamic faiths, which, I believe, in their pure form, are tailor-made for mankind. Sadly, much of it has been contaminate with the words of men (Jeremiah 14:15), but I think it's possible to identify an dismiss these interpolations (celibate priests and nun's for example, what a load of old hogwash).
This man Muhammad, is certainly not one of these impostor interpolators, and anybody who dismisses him as such; knows very little about the man, or the religion, for he was a truly amazing man.
PS There is unique about my take on Islam; I just stick to the book (well, I try), and wish many so-called Muslims would do the same. Then there would be no killings etc.

Oh come on Dermot, stop Ummah-ing and Ah-ing . You already have what many here would consider to be a fairly unique take on the Islamic faith, so why not a unique life-style as a British Muslim who refuses to follow the herd mentality?

And as you are already aware, I've stated my opinions about the authenticity of the Koran on a previous thread and provided you with various examples evidencing the veracity of those opinions ( but because they happen to appear in an easy to access format on a Christian website, for some reason they are deemed by you to be inadmissible) and you know it.

At least we can now dispense with the idea that you are just a concerned Christian seeking peace and understanding between Christians and the peoples of the Islamic persuasion. Maybe I should thank Allah for that.

"I'm surprised you didn't know this already but Islam does *not* require you to change your 'Christian' name (or change your nationality"

Thanks for the rebuke, only problem is, I never said Islam requires you to change your name. If you look again, I said: "These are obviously rules established by mortal men" The nationality change remark was meant in an ostensible manner, however, if you look at the those who do convert to Islam in this country (especially the woman), they certainly don't look or act British. In the town I live we have young white woman walking around in niqaabs, chadors, and, no doubt, burqas as well, looking and behaving like foreigners. Their dress and behaviour is determined not by their own character or nationality, but by their menfolk.
You could have asked our resident Master's Degree in bulls...sorry, Islam and Arabic, M Anthony, but he's done a bunk with his tail between his legs, running scared from a man with no qualifications whatsoever. Allah works in mysterious ways eh?
Incidentally, why all the questions about Jesus and his mission? Are you asking or judging? Mind you, either way is OK by me, but's lets hear your opinion for a change.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already but Islam does *not* require you to change your 'Christian' name (or change your nationality, wherever you got that idea from) *unless* it has a 'bad' meaning i.e. means something which is contrary to the tenets of the faith. As for your surname, it is forbidden to change it because it bears witness to your legitimate paternal lineage.

Dermot "Free from envy" Doyle is perfectly Kosher, if you'll parden the expression.

"if you currently aren't a Muslim it begs the question, why not?"
Kevin.

Why don't I become Muslim? It's a fair question, but maybe I am in a certain sense, for I feel anybody who submits to belief in God is a Muslim, for that's all Muslim means; one who submits to God. The religion of Islam we see in this country today is a different matter altogether, and, in my view, far removed from the pure message of the Koran, buried so deep in middle-eastern culture tradition, that in order to embrace the movement, one not only has to change the name you were born with to a completely alien name like Ahmed, or Abdul; but change your nationality as well. These are obviously rules established by mortal men, and there's no way I would follow them.
I feel that if you live your life in a manner God would approve (assuming you believe of course); then what religion you choose is irrelevant. Morality is the same in whatever language.

No, Dermot, you tell me. Based upon that explanation, and if everything you say is true, should you and I be Christians or Muslims? Moreover, if you currently aren't a Muslim it begs the question, why not?

Was Jesus Christ God incarnate, or just a man? Did he die on the cross for the sins of man,?...
Kevin.

I'm afraid I'm the only one left on here, The "expert Master" of Islam, M Anthony, has made himself scarce after inadvertently exposing the true level of his knowledge on the subject, but that's par for the course. I suppose he or she will simply change his pseudonym and carry on as if nothing happened.
However I can offer some small morsels of explanation (you can accept or dismiss, whatever). For example in answer to your "was his body substituted by Allah" (actually there was no substitute, it simply says it was made to appear that he was crucified 4:157) but we don't need to consult the Koran, for there is quite a lot in the new testament.
If you remove pre-conceived notions. there is quite a revealing story that concurs with this Koranic claim. Pilate was surprised Jesus had "died" so quickly (Mark 15:44), The high priest and his cohorts suspected subterfuge (Matt 27:64, exactly as the Koran says so) why?, and ask Pilate to guard the tomb (he refuses, again Why? His wife had warned him not to harm Jesus (Matt 27:19)
Do risen Christ's look like gardeners? Mary Magdalene thought so (John 20:15) or was she fooled by his disguise? Jesus being still alive and in cognito having cheated the cruci(fiction) dressed as a gardener to escape detection. It's a plausible reading of the lines in the Gospel.
I'll finish with one (though there's a few more) very telling example. The Disciples in the upper room drew back in fear at the "ghost (spirit)" of Jesus, and Jesus says: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." In plain English Jesus is saying he is still a mortal human being, and has not died. He even asks for food and proceeds to eat. Do spirits get hungry and eat?
Diid he die for our sins? Well if you stick only to the words of Jesus himself (in the synoptic Gospels at least) you will find no such notion coming from his mouth. Nowhere does he say I have come to die for your sins. This idea comes mainly from the famous Paul, who claims to have met Jesus after he died (strangely though they both lived close to each other Paul never met Jesus while he was alive). His true companions have been pushed to the edges of the debate, reduced to rather stupid and slow figures, unable to understand the nature of Jesus mission (hence Peter having to be told in a dream that his Jewish beliefs no longer applied (Acts 10) after three years constantly by Jesus side.
In reality these figures such as Peter and James etc were men of powerful character and knew exactly what Jesus mission was, and if they believed Judaism was still in place; then that is what Jesus must have said. So where did this die for your sins notion comer from? You tell me?

Some questions for believers (others are free to talk among themselves, or pay serious attention).

Was Jesus Christ God incarnate, or just a man? Did he die on the cross for the sins of man, or was his body substituted by Allah? Is the Trinity comprised of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or does it comprise of some other fanciful combination? Is the Koran the perfectly preserved word of God, or is it a collection of plagiarised texts, some true others not? Did Salman Rushdie invent the 'Satanic verses', or were they a part of the original pre abrogated 'divine revelation' given to Muhammed by God? "Paracletos" or "Pericletos", you decide, but decide you must. If the former argument is true then all Muslims should be Christians and if the latter, all Christians should be Muslims, it really is as simple as that.

By the way, for those who seek dubious and not so dubious parallels between people's various religious beliefs in an attempt to square some imaginary circle, I'd heartily recommend the works of the late Hindu historical revisionist P N Oak. Example. 'Was the Kaaba originally a hindu temple?' Discuss.

I remember while bringing up my children, I threatened them with severe punishment almost on a hourly basis, but you could count on one hand (during their entire upbringing) the times I actually administered anything remotely severe (best be careful, lest I get a visit from the anti-UKIP fascist carer brigade).
Are we not the children of God? These "threats of punishment" are designed as an instrument of reproach, and restraint (just like mine were), rather than an actual intention, and anyway (as I have said over, and over again), there is always the caveat that if you desist and genuinely repent before you die (God knows the genuine); you will escape any punishment, and even if you don't repent, it is you yourself who determines the measure of your punishment so you only have yourself to blame.
The incentive to behave righteously is powerful ("He that does good shall have ten times as much to his credit: He that does evil shall only be recompensed according to his evil: no wrong shall be done unto them" 6:160")
That's the big problem with your lot (including "Master" Anthony); you don't consider the message in its entirety. How does it go? Fools shouldn't see a job til it's finished.

"Of the 1000 names of Allah 999 are known to men but the thousandth is known only to the camel...Tell me what you think this proverb means (one name is known only to the camel) and we may have a sensible debate. If not then I really can't be bothered."

M Anthony

For a start it's 99 not 999 (a rather elementary error for a so-called Master of Islamic study), and anyway, this little ditty is Hadith based, which, unlike the Koran, does not claim to be God's words, so the question is irrelevant. However, here's one that is from the Koran, and, if anything, even more enigmatic:
"At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." (27:18).
So, it seems, the ants talk to each other? I have my own ideas, but, like your Camel question, they are merely my own stab in the dark musings, the same as anyone elses would be, and not the basis for serious discussion, though very interesting nonetheless.
Sincere belief in God goes a long way toward understanding and accepting this type of verse, for far more extraordinary phenomena (such as the Solar System) is there for all to see. That's why I can't understand the virgin birth sceptics. It proves nothing, for if there is a God capable of creating this universe; immaculate conception would in no way be beyond His capabilities.
To present these questions with a note of sarcasm is the hallmark of the unbeliever with intention to ridicule. This of course is your prerogative, but there's nothing new to be learnt from it, as I've heard it all many times before.
For a Masters expert in Arabic and Islam (sorry to keep bringing it up, but you don't talk like one), why do I detect an air of Christian anti-Islam polemic web-site in your questions, deep knowledge on this subject is above such agenda driven argument, is it not?.

@ Dermot Doyle . I have a GCE,( not one of these modern GSCE) in stating the bleeding obvious .
Insomuch ,whatever the Koran has written in it .just like the Bible . Is open to interpretation by the good, the bad ,and the ugly .
At this present time .one could be excused for thinking, the bad and the ugly have prominence.
For a book that teaches its follows how to toilet, and bathe. Its an overwhelming authority. And like Mr Anthony declares . heavy on punishment ,for those daring to question it. Has plenty bad things to say for infidels and Jews. All bad I have to say . But you have a right to suggest otherwise. Just don't put all your eggs in that particular basket is my heartfelt advice.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.